User talk:Heanor

Hi Heanor! Thank you for your edits to Orthodoxy. It looks like you've copied or moved text from one or more pages into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for creating Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana which I’ve just reviewed. Is it based partly on the article on another wiki? If so I need to add a translation template so the text is properly attributed. Mccapra (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Mccapra. Yes, it is partly a translation from Russian. Which translation template is needed? --Heanor (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I’ll add it now and you can adapt and use it any time you part-translate. All the best. Mccapra (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Orthodox civilization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Orthodox civilization until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rwanda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re List of sovereign states, the link works fine afaics, perhaps you included the edit comment bracket at the end. Also see United Nations General Assembly observers ("The practice is to distinguish between state and non-state observers. Non-member states are members of one or more specialized agencies, and can apply for permanent observer state status."). In any event this has all been discussed previously.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Selfstudier:, ok, I see now. Sorry for a confusion. I hope you have no objections to this clarification? --Heanor (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of an article you recently edited being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Request for comments - "Catholic (term)" to "History of Catholicity". You are invited to participate in the discussion! –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've just noticed you're quite a new editor. If you ever need some help or guidance, or just have a question you'd like answered, please feel free to send me a message over at my talk page or {{ping}} me. We're all here to improve the global access to free, quality information so don't feel too bad if you make a mistake or two or feel your question is simple. We've all been beginners at some point :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! --Heanor (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Russian crisis however the "See also" section contains 3 links to disambiguation pages, and I wasn't sure what is intended. If you meant to link to the dab pages see WP:INTDAB, if not could you make the links go to the intended pages?— Rod ^talk 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Rod! Yes, I meant to link to the dab pages. Thank you for checking, I fixed the links in accord with WP:INTDAB. --Heanor (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Also please avoid the cut and paste moves your breaking attribution Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 21:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, @Synoman Barris:! I'm just doing the WP:BRD thing. I filed two move requests to revert your reverts. Please comment there. --Heanor (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's no even an actual policy but a suggestion. Making a bold move on a long standing 20 year old title of an article is never uncontroversial. You also fixed alot of links leaving other editors to clean them up. I suggest you revert yourself and wait for the RM to end. Cheers Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 21:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Heanor. I'll second Megan in saying that while BRD is encouraged, moving the longstanding title of an article is a particularly visible and potentially disruptive change that should almost always be discussed. In this case, you changed the links in dozens of articles to match the new title, which is work that will now need to be undone while the move discussion is in progress. So it's not nearly as simple as reverting a single edit, which is the case that BRD is mainly concerned with. Rublov (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the sentiments of other editors here regarding your recent renaming campaign. Non-native speakers of English should be especially hesistant to make unilateral changes to names on the English Wikipedia. Eric ^talk 17:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, which move find you problematic? Just to better understand what you mean. --Heanor (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hauts-de-France, among others. "Upper France" would never be implemented as an official placename in English. Eric ^talk 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian crisis to Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation) is another move that, while not necessarily wrong, should certainly have been discussed. Heanor, I urge you to act with more circumspection and stop unilaterally moving pages until you have more experience with the requested move process and can more accurately gauge whether a move could possibly be controversial or not. Rublov (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rublov, about Russo-Ukrainian crisis to Russo-Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation) I just restored status quo. --Heanor (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm a bit confused by the edit history but since those are two recently-created, short pages, it's no big deal. Personally, I almost always go through the RM process, even when the change seems trivial (e.g., Ranter → Ranters), because I don't always get it right, and it's better to have a failed RM than to annoy a bunch of editors with an ill-conceived move.

I appreciate your willingness to learn; this is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't go through. I hope to see you at RM in the future. Rublov (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian land and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Russian land until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you closed the RfD nomination you started, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_11#Moqua_well, as well as some other RfD discussions you initiated in the past few weeks. While withdrawing your own nomination is usually acceptable, you should not do so after another user has commented and suggested a course of action other than keep, as in the above case. The problem here is that this can be viewed as an attempt to avoid an outcome you don't favor (e.g. you either favor deletion or keeping as is, but are against retargeting), even if this wasn't your intention or motive. I have reopened the above discussion, you are free to participate and revise your nomination if you no longer feel it should be deleted, or are opposed to other user's suggestions. Please see WP:WITHDRAWN for guidance on closing your own nominations. Also, when doing so in the future, they should either be closed as speedy keep or withdrawn and not just keep. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you retargeted these as suggested right after you closed the discussion. In that case, I think the problem here is your use of XFDcloser (i.e. clicking on the "keep" button). When withdrawing nominations, you should do so manually by following the directions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions which allows you to specify an outcome like withdrawn or speedy keep or speedy retarget. In this case, the proper close would be speedy retarget. By closing as keep and then retargeting, it makes things very confusing in the edit history. That said, once you've started a discussion, even if the suggestion of the first commenter seems to you to be obviously the correct course of action, it might just be easier to leave the discussion open. Redirects can usually wait a week to be fixed without harming too much, or another user might come along and close it for you too earlier than that. Thanks for your efforts! Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for creating Cinema of Suriname which I’m just reviewing. It is a requirement that when we translate if re-use any material from another language wiki, we give proper attribution for copyright reasons. If you use material from another wiki you should say so in your first edit summary when you create a new article. There’s also a template that can go on the article talk page. I’ve added it for you. Happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Eastern world into Eastern Culture. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eastern culture. Thanks! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Eastern world instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eastern culture and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Eastern culture, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heanor! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Eastern culture a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Eastern culture. (Well, technically Eastern Culture as it was titled at the time.) This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.

(It seems you copied the contents from Draft:Eastern culture to Eastern Culture (capital "C") to get around the edit protection on Eastern culture, but in the process bypassed the WP:AFC submission process for the draft. If the page wasn't moved via the WP:RM on Talk:Eastern culture, I would have reverted your cut-paste move as a blatant bypass of the recommendations to use the WP:AFC process to submit the draft or to submit Draft:Eastern culture [NOT Eastern Culture] for a formal WP:RM request.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heanor. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 15:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your page move, because it was contradicted even for "Finno-Ugric" by the definition given in the lead (that there are just 3 such countries) as well as by the meaning of "Uralic", and did not correspond to the refs. I also reverted a lot of recent edits to the lead. Feel free to restore any improvement; the lead had become gibberish so I didn't spend much time trying to save anything. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]